Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Photography, Digital including Point and Shoot -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Henry J Costanzo who wrote (1852)	7/6/2010 1:21:54 PM
From: Lahcim Leinad	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4530

the cover PHOTO,,doctored or not...cannot be seen in isolation...as clearly and convincingly set forth in the Editor's statement about this molehill made into a mountain..vbg... Woah, Nelly! The photo, being on the cover, MUST be taken in isolation. And, it CLEARLY breaks ALL ethical rules of factual photojournalism. It was not an "editorial illustration." It was the cover photo pretending to be factual. Not good. Not good at all! Whatever blabla may be inside the magazine is absolutely irrelevant. The image was grossly manipulated. Not cool. Not cool at all. By any photojournalistic standard. Case closed!

To: Henry J Costanzo who wrote (1852)	7/6/2010 7:09:54 PM
From: nigel bates	Respond to of 4530

>>clearly and convincingly set forth in the Editor's statement<< You're worryingly easily convinced, then. Even setting aside the issue of (undocumented) photo manipulation, the statement is incoherent in its own terms: "I asked for Ms. Randolph to be removed because I wanted readers to focus on Mr. Obama, not because I wanted to make him look isolated. That wasn’t the point of the story. “The damage beyond the spill” referred to on the cover, and examined in the cover leader, was the damage not to Mr. Obama, but to business in America..." Quite how the cover picture illustrates the "damage to business is America" is entirely opaque to me. Unless it's the damage to the business of journalism.